8 Jun
2005
8 Jun
'05
7:07 p.m.
On Wednesday 08 Jun 2005 21:56, Jussi Laako wrote:
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 21:41 +0100, Chris Cannam
wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry -- I was ploughing through this thread and just replying
to something with "vector" in it. I do apologise.
It certainly is possible to write extremely efficient classes in C++,
and in many cases they may be likely to be better than the code that
people would write in C (because you can encapsulate best practice in a
method that people would [often rightly] be averse to writing in the
context of C code). Of course the reverse is also true.
Are you sure this is still true in the gcc world,
after they
changed vector from an array to a real class in gcc 3.3 or whenever
it was?
Abovementioned template is not based on STL... About the STL; there are number of different
implementations of
std::vector<> in different C++ RTLs
Yes, indeed, but a couple of times here I've seen observations that a
vector would compile to an array if optimisation was on, etc. Since
we're mostly using gcc-3.3+ now, I wanted to ask if anyone is sure
whether that's really true.
Chris